I'm wondering why didn't some of the far-leftie guys in our church follow what this church did...

It seems that sexuality is dividing just about every denomination out there, and I don't understand why. Homosexuality has been a part of human history from the very beginning, and most denominations have had homosexual clergy since the very beginning. It's theorized that Saint Paul was gay. In TEC we preach tolerance and openness. And openness is the only thing that has changed. I wonder how many Popes, were gay. I wonder how many of our own Bishops and priests were gay over the last several hundred years.

The fact that the door has been ripped off the closet only reduces the hypocrisy. Some have a difficult time with that minor detail.

There is an article out there in the Ethernet that says President Buchanon was our first gay President. Again, does anyone really care?

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato

A friend of mine just wrote the following on another Board. It seems apropos to this thread:

This edition of “The Fourth R” had a couple of interesting items. Patterson wrote one about the views of some Christians concerning homosexuality, showing that the Bible really hasn’t anything to say about it. I finished writing about the same subject, but looked at it differently from a secular view, a simple view. If one has a biblical view about this, one should be consistent. What might that mean? Throughout the Bible, women are considered the property of men...

It is important, when looking at the anti-homosexual views of some Christians, to understand that, though certain practices are condemned by the Bible, these pale in comparison with the view the Bible has toward women. To remain consistent with homophobic views, it seems that the biblical view of women would also be observed by these Christians, since it is clearer and reiterated far more than homosexuality, which was not defined and even recognized in the ancient Near East. What was this view of women? In Exodus 20:20 (the tenth commandment), the neighbor’s wife is considered the same as the neighbor’s slave, ox, ass, and even his house. She is a possession of her husband. We find that the patriarch of the Hebrews, Abraham gave his wife to the Pharaoh (Gen. 12), then to the king of Gerar (Gen. 20), finally having his wife present Abe with her slave so he could have sex, providing a son for him. (Isaac gave his wife to the same king of Gerar too, in chapter 26.) We find Judah, in Gen. 38, presenting Tamar to various people (Er, Onan) and then, when she played the part of harlot and Judah decided to have her killed, burned at the stake, found out that he had been having sex with her in her guise as a harlot, and spared her life. It was his life to spare. (We note that Onan was struck dead by God because he spilled seed on the ground instead of planting his seed in Tamar.) We find that, Numbers 5, if a man is jealous for any reason, the woman is brought to trial and put through hell. We find in Ex. 22:15-16 that the virgin is a piece of property, that seduction of her results in a “bride price” being paid. The story of Lot, the story in Judges 19 both point to women as property. The Judges story is rather disturbing. In fact, in Deut. 25:11 we find, “If two men get into a fight with each other and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts her hand and seizes him by his genitals, you should cut off her hand; show no pity.” Show no pity? Cut off her hand for coming to the aid of her husband? Well, as a woman she offended the dignity or decency of the man attacking her husband so she had to be punished. This is biblical law. The adultery laws reflected a culture of polygamy, where a man could own as many women as he could afford, so what did adultery mean? Not much for men, when women were property and sex a tool for transferring the human (thought to be complete in the sperm, which comes from the Greek for “seed”) to the woman for incubation.

Those who point to biblical passages to defend their hatred of homosexuality would do well to look at the culture of polygamy, slavery, women as property, characters like Eve, Delilah, and Lot’s unnamed daughters procreating sons (named of course) by getting daddy drunk and seducing him. Not a pretty picture. Speaking of Lot, when the men of Sodom came to him demanding to have sex with two angels visiting with him, here are his words: “I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you and you may do to them as you please; but do not anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof.” In other words, the hospitality of Lot’s house was more important than the safety, the welfare of his virgin daughters... That is the biblical view of women. (We can also note the seductions of Tamar and Ruth, the prostitute Rahab, the willing Bathsheba, all purported ancestors of Jesus.) The same misogyny is continued in the Christian canon, particularly in the Pauline and Pastoral texts, with woman created for man, prohibition of women doing something “disgraceful” like speaking in church, one who prays with her hair up should just as well have her head shaved (1 Cor 11:7ff, 14:34ff), being subordinate, not fully human. In the pseudo-Pauline Ephesians (5:23) women are to be subject to their husband. It was the same system in which women were considered property. They weren’t allowed to vote until after the first World War in America. So, a biblical world is a world where women are the property of men.

What do we have about “homosexuality” in the Bible? We have the infamous Romans 1 passage, in which women and men “committed shameless acts” with each other. The author is saying that this is a penalty of those who don’t “recognize God,” along with other penalties, including jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and spite, gossiping, slandering and rebelliousness. It’s just one of a list. Next, we have 1 Cor. 6:9 – 11, which gives another list of those who won’t inherit the kingdom. That doesn’t include “homosexuals,” but mentions the word “arsenokoitai,” which means literally the same thing in English if the words are taken apart as it does in Greek and referred to male prostitutes. It has another word, “malakoi,” which means “soft ones,” or the effeminate male. It also includes the greedy, drunks, and so forth, just a Pauline list. Jude and 2 Peter hearken to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, which is about inhospitality in an evil place, mentioned earlier. In the Tanakh, we have Lev. 18:22, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” It is repeated in Lev. 20:13. That’s about it. The footnote about that in my TNK states, “Biblical and ancient Near East culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation... It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge or subjection” and refers readers to Gen. 19:4-5 and Judges 19:22).

So, if one opposes equal marriage rights for folks of the same sex on biblical grounds, those grounds are shaky... One would be more accurate to use the Bible to fight for having women considered property. That would put them on firm biblical grounds... Or, those who fight against gay rights because of their biblical views will find more support for slavery than they will about denying rights to people because of their love. After all, 1 Sam 1 has a dirge in it where David says his love with Jonathan “was wonderful to me more than the love of women.” (We get a familiar quote from that dirge, “How have the mighty fallen.”) In 1 Sam 18:3, we find that “Jonathan and David made a pact, because Jonathan loved him as himself,” even giving David his clothing. [I wrote this before reading Patterson’s piece.] Yes, those who long for biblical rationale would do better supporting slavery or viewing women as assets of men, possessions. Some day they should dust off their KJV’s and read them! DDC

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato

The Bible is full of hideous examples of human violence and depavity in the name of God. I would not recommended it as a guide for morality.

I do not understand how anyone living today can believe in God who cares (or cared) about what fabric humans sewed together, if people eat shell fish, or if people of the same sex take pleasure in each other's bodies. IMO a God who was literally above the world He directly createdmay have care about such silly stuff, but not the God who is the ground of being of a vast universe, and perhaps multi-verses! A simple rule of human compassion and social justice should be sufficient. Certainly the God depicited in the Bible was not always a good example of compassion and justice!

Yes its amazing the fundies will cite the one line from the Bible that supposedly seals the deal about homosexuality and blatantly ignore what the rest of the Bible says about sex, of which there's plenty. The Bible is 50 times "dirtier" than "50 Shades of Grey", which the fundie types are trying to ban!

As for gay presidents, there's a long held theory that Lincoln was gay and at one time shared a bed and exchanged passionate letters with a male. And its no secret his marriage to Mary Todd was desparately unhappy and more of a political move than a love affair.

"The centrality of our mission is to love each other. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine."- ++KJShttp://kjsfanpage.blogspot.com/http://chicksinpointyhats.blogspot.com/

"We are to be Christ's hands and feet and heart and mind and we cannot do that if we assume God's role of judgment. The judge's job is filled. God alone is judge! Those who would be Saviors of the Church and the people in it are also reminded that the Savior's job has been filled. Jesus Christ filled it once for all. "- Bishop Rodney Michel

The Bible is full of hideous examples of human violence and depavity in the name of God. I would not recommended it as a guide for morality.

I do not understand how anyone living today can believe in God who cares (or cared) about what fabric humans sewed together, if people eat shell fish, or if people of the same sex take pleasure in each other's bodies. IMO a God who was literally above the world He directly createdmay have care about such silly stuff, but not the God who is the ground of being of a vast universe, and perhaps multi-verses! A simple rule of human compassion and social justice should be sufficient. Certainly the God depicited in the Bible was not always a good example of compassion and justice!

[/quote] President Buchanon was our first gay President. Again, does anyone really care?[/quote]

Actually, yes ---- his partner William Rufus King cared.

Buchanon and King were a known couple in the Washington D.C. of the 19th. century. They lodged together, wrote love letters to each other, and were the tittling talk of the town.

King went on to become V.P. under Franklin Pierce (1853-57) but, alas, contracted t.b.. He went to Cuba for his health and was administered the oath of office at the American Councilate in Havana. He then returned to his plantation in Alabama (or was it Georgia?) where he died before assuming office in D.C.

Buchanon was later elected President and remained unmarried for the remainder of his life. The wifely social functions of the White House were overseen by his charming niece, Harriet Lane.